**The best option is to keep the current license, [CC-BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode).**

### How does it make the life of a developer easy, or less complicated?

1. It does not require Stack Exchange users to learn a new licensing regime.

1. It does not require impossible tasks of anyone, such as distinguishing between ['code' and other content](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/271117).

1. It allows all content to be freely used by anyone, including in derivative works and for-profit enterprises, subject to fair terms.

1. It helps protect the Stack Exchange community from [plagiariasm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) and the [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

1. It avoids license fragmentation (different licenses for different parts of Stack Exchange), and the confusion that would create.

1. It is [GPLv3 compatible](http://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2236) (IMO, IANAL).

### What do I as a decision maker have to know. What can or should I do and what is allowed or not?

Decision makers should read the license. This is easy, because:

* the license is short;
* it has an even shorter [summary](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) in case you're in a hurry;
* there is already a link to the licence at the bottom of every single page in the Stack Exchange network of sites. (Scroll down if you want to check!)

Of course, decision makers should always read the license *anyway*.

### A decent way for contributors to get credit in some way for their efforts (if you think that should come in)

The license requires attribution, for the good reason articulated by Stack Exchange's [co-founder](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/defending-attribution-required/):

> **"The whole point of Stack Overflow, Server Fault, Super User, and every
> other Stack Exchange site is to give credit directly to the talented
> people providing all these fantastic answers."**

### What are the pros and cons (don't forget these) of the license model you propose?

If you have [sketchy business requirements](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271080/the-mit-license-clarity-on-using-code-on-stack-overflow-and-stack-exchange#comment884204_271166) then this license will [stymie you](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/defending-attribution-required/). That's a con for anyone with sketchy business requirements and a pro for all legitimate users of the sites.

### How does your proposal fit in different types of sites? For example: Stack Overflow, Code Review, Code Golf, SF&F, Seasoned Advice.

It leaves them all exactly as they are, so they can continue to thrive!